FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 153883. January 13, 2004]

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. CHULE Y.

LIM, respondent.

DECISION
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:

This petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court

stemmed from a petition for correction of entries under Rule 108 of the
Rules of Court filed by respondent Chule Y. Lim with the Regional Trial
Court of Lanao del Norte, Branch 4, docketed as Sp. Proc. No. 4933.
In her petition, respondent claimed that she was born on October 29,
1954 in Buru-an, Iligan City. Her birth was registered in Kauswagan, Lanao
del Norte but the Municipal Civil Registrar of Kauswagan transferred her
record of birth to Iligan City. She alleged that both her Kauswagan and
Iligan City records of birth have four erroneous entries, and prays that they
be corrected.
The trial court then issued an Order,  which reads:
[1]

WHEREFORE, finding the petition to be sufficient in form and substance, let the
hearing of this case be set on December 27, 1999 before this Court, Hall of Justice,
Rosario Heights, Tubod, Iligan City at 8:30 oclock in the afternoon at which date,
place and time any interested person may appear and show cause why the petition
should not be granted.

Let this order be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of

Iligan and the Province of Lanao del Norte once a week for three (3) consecutive
weeks at the expense of the petitioner.

Furnish copies of this order the Office of the Solicitor General at 134 Amorsolo
St., Legaspi Vill., Makati City and the Office of the Local Civil Registrar of Iligan
City at Quezon Ave., Pala-o, Iligan City.

SO ORDERED.

During the hearing, respondent testified thus:

 First, she claims that her surname Yu was misspelled as Yo. She has
been using Yu in all her school records and in her marriage certificate.
 She presented a clearance from the National Bureau of Investigation
[2]

(NBI)  to further show the consistency in her use of the surname Yu.
[3]

Second, she claims that her fathers name in her birth record was
written as Yo Diu To (Co Tian) when it should have been Yu Dio To (Co
Tian).
Third, her nationality was entered as Chinese when it should have been
Filipino considering that her father and mother never got married. Only her
deceased father was Chinese, while her mother is Filipina. She claims that
her being a registered voter attests to the fact that she is a Filipino citizen.
Finally, it was erroneously indicated in her birth certificate that she was
a legitimate child when she should have been described as illegitimate
considering that her parents were never married.
Placida Anto, respondents mother, testified that she is a Filipino citizen
as her parents were both Filipinos from Camiguin. She added that she and
her daughters father were never married because the latter had a prior
subsisting marriage contracted in China.
In this connection, respondent presented a certification attested by
officials of the local civil registries of Iligan City and Kauswagan, Lanao del
Norte that there is no record of marriage between Placida Anto and Yu Dio
To from 1948 to the present.
The Republic, through the City Prosecutor of Iligan City, did not present
any evidence although it actively participated in the proceedings by
attending hearings and cross-examining respondent and her witnesses.
On February 22, 2000, the trial court granted respondents petition and
rendered judgment as follows:

WHEREFORE, the foregoing premises considered, to set the records of the

petitioner straight and in their proper perspective, the petition is granted and the
Civil Registrar of Iligan City is directed to make the following corrections in the
birth records of the petitioner, to wit:

1. Her family name from YO to YU;

2. Her fathers name from YO DIU TO (CO TIAN) to YU DIOTO (CO

TIAN);

3. Her status from legitimate to illegitimate by changing YES to NO in

answer to the question LEGITIMATE?; and,

4. Her citizenship from Chinese to Filipino.

 SO ORDERED. [4]

The Republic of the Philippines appealed the decision to the Court of

Appeals which affirmed the trial courts decision.[5]

Hence, this petition on the following assigned errors:

I

THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN ORDERING THE CORRECTION OF

THE CITIZENSHIP OF RESPONDENT CHULE Y. LIM FROM CHINESE TO
FILIPINO DESPITE THE FACT THAT RESPONDENT NEVER
DEMONSTRATED ANY COMPLIANCE WITH THE LEGAL
REQUIREMENTS FOR ELECTION OF CITIZENSHIP.

II

THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN ALLOWING RESPONDENT TO

CONTINUE USING HER FATHERS SURNAME DESPITE ITS FINDING
THAT RESPONDENT IS AN ILLEGITIMATE CHILD. [6]

To digress, it is just as well that the Republic did not cite as error
respondents recourse to Rule 108 of the Rules of Court to effect what
indisputably are substantial corrections and changes in entries in the civil
register. To clarify, Rule 108 of the Revised Rules of Court provides the
procedure for cancellation or correction of entries in the civil registry. The
proceedings under said rule may either be summary or adversary in
nature. If the correction sought to be made in the civil register is clerical,
then the procedure to be adopted is summary. If the rectification affects the
civil status, citizenship or nationality of a party, it is deemed substantial,
and the procedure to be adopted is adversary. This is our ruling in Republic
v. Valencia where we held that even substantial errors in a civil registry
[7]

may be corrected and the true facts established under Rule 108 provided
the parties aggrieved by the error avail themselves of the appropriate
adversary proceeding. An appropriate adversary suit or proceeding is one
where the trial court has conducted proceedings where all relevant facts
have been fully and properly developed, where opposing counsel have
been given opportunity to demolish the opposite partys case, and where
the evidence has been thoroughly weighed and considered. [8]

As likewise observed by the Court of Appeals, we take it that the

Republics failure to cite this error amounts to a recognition that this case
properly falls under Rule 108 of the Revised Rules of Court considering
that the proceeding can be appropriately classified as adversarial.
Instead, in its first assignment of error, the Republic avers that
respondent did not comply with the constitutional requirement of electing
Filipino citizenship when she reached the age of majority. It cites Article IV,
Section 1(3) of the 1935 Constitution, which provides that the citizenship of
a legitimate child born of a Filipino mother and an alien father followed the
citizenship of the father, unless, upon reaching the age of majority, the child
elected Philippine citizenship.  Likewise, the Republic invokes the provision
[9]

in Section 1 of Commonwealth Act No. 625, that legitimate children born of

Filipino mothers may elect Philippine citizenship by expressing such
intention in a statement to be signed and sworn to by the party concerned
before any officer authorized to administer oaths, and shall be filed with the
nearest civil registry. The said party shall accompany the aforesaid
statement with the oath of allegiance to the Constitution and the
Government of the Philippines. [10]

Plainly, the above constitutional and statutory requirements of electing

Filipino citizenship apply only to legitimate children. These do not apply in
the case of respondent who was concededly an illegitimate child,
considering that her Chinese father and Filipino mother were never
married. As such, she was not required to comply with said constitutional
and statutory requirements to become a Filipino citizen. By being an
illegitimate child of a Filipino mother, respondent automatically became a
Filipino upon birth. Stated differently, she is a Filipino since birth without
having to elect Filipino citizenship when she reached the age of majority.
In Ching, Re: Application for Admission to the Bar,  citing In re [11]

Florencio Mallare,  we held:

[12]

Esteban Mallare, natural child of Ana Mallare, a Filipina, is therefore himself a

Filipino, and no other act would be necessary to confer on him all the rights and
privileges attached to Philippine citizenship (U.S. vs. Ong Tianse, 29 Phil.
332; Santos Co vs. Government of the Philippine Islands, 42 Phil. 543; Serra vs.
Republic, L-4223, May 12, 1952; Sy Quimsuan vs. Republic, L-4693, Feb. 16,
1953; Pitallano vs. Republic, L-5111, June 28, 1954). Neither could any act be
taken on the erroneous belief that he is a non-Filipino divest him of the citizenship
privileges to which he is rightfully entitled. [13]

This notwithstanding, the records show that respondent elected Filipino

citizenship when she reached the age of majority. She registered as a voter
in Misamis Oriental when she was 18 years old.  The exercise of the right
[14]

of suffrage and the participation in election exercises constitute a positive

act of election of Philippine citizenship. [15]

In its second assignment of error, the Republic assails the Court of

Appeals decision in allowing respondent to use her fathers surname
despite its finding that she is illegitimate.
The Republics submission is misleading. The Court of Appeals did not
allow respondent to use her fathers surname. What it did allow was the
correction of her fathers misspelled surname which she has been using
ever since she can remember. In this regard, respondent does not need a
court pronouncement for her to use her fathers surname.
We agree with the Court of Appeals when it held:

Firstly, Petitioner-appellee is now 47 years old. To bar her at this time from using
her fathers surname which she has used for four decades without any known
objection from anybody, would only sow confusion. Concededly, one of the
reasons allowed for changing ones name or surname is to avoid confusion.

Secondly, under Sec. 1 of Commonwealth Act No. 142, the law regulating the use
of aliases, a person is allowed to use a name by which he has been known since
childhood.

Thirdly, the Supreme Court has already addressed the same issue. In Pabellar v.
Rep. of the Phils.,  we held:
[16]

Section 1 of Commonwealth Act No. 142, which regulates the use of aliases,
allows a person to use a name by which he has been known since childhood (Lim
Hok Albano v. Republic, 104 Phil. 795; People v. Uy Jui Pio, 102 Phil. 679;
Republic v. Taada, infra). Even legitimate children cannot enjoin the illegitimate
children of their father from using his surname (De Valencia v. Rodriguez, 84 Phil.
222). [17]

While judicial authority is required for a change of name or surname,

 there is no such requirement for the continued use of a surname which a
[18]

person has already been using since childhood. [19]

The doctrine that disallows such change of name as would give the
false impression of family relationship remains valid but only to the extent
that the proposed change of name would in great probability cause
prejudice or future mischief to the family whose surname it is that is
involved or to the community in general.  In this case, the Republic has not
[20]

shown that the Yu family in China would probably be prejudiced or be the

object of future mischief. In respondents case, the change in the surname
that she has been using for 40 years would even avoid confusion to her
community in general.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the instant petition for review is
DENIED. The decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 68893
dated May 29, 2002, is AFFIRMED.Accordingly, the Civil Registrar of Iligan
City is DIRECTED to make the following corrections in the birth record of
respondent Chule Y. Lim, to wit:

1. Her family name from YO to YU;

2. Her fathers name from YO DIU TO (CO TIAN) to YU DIOTO (CO TIAN);

3. Her status from legitimate to illegitimate by changing YES to NO in answer to

the question LEGITIMATE?; and,

4. Her citizenship from Chinese to Filipino.

SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), Panganiban, Carpio, and Azcuna, JJ.,
concur.